The PDP presidential campaign Organisation has affirmed its readiness to defend in court of law the eligibility of its presidential candidate ,Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to contest the February 14th,presidential election.
Director of Legal Affairs of the campaign,Prince Adetokunbo Kayode SAN, made this known while reacting to a suit filed by APC agents at the Federal High Court, Abuja challenging the eligibility of President Goodluck Jonathan.
The plaintiffs,which include Prof. Tunde Samuel, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, Mr. Razak Adeosun and Yahaya Ezemoo, are pleading with the court to restrain Dr. Jonathan from contesting, putting himself forward and or accepting to contest for the office of President, Federal Republic of Nigeria at the 2015 presidential election.
Prince Kayode described the suit as a political game play being played for the umpteenth time,affirming that ” we will meet in court” saying that the case is a flagrant and desperate abuse of court process.
“Even though, President Jonathan was sworn in as President in 2010 by the operation of the Constitution (sections 146(1), it was mainly to conclude President Yar ‘Adua’s tenure,not to serve a four year elected tenure. That tenure expired on May 29th 2011, when, if Yar’Adua were alive, he would have had to vacate office. Unless of course if he had secured a second term mandate.
“The kernel of Section 135(2) relate to the date of taking oath of office of any president, alive or dead. This provision reiterates the four year tenure of an elected president, and no more. A presidency expires after every four years, irrespective of who started or concluded the tenure. Thus Section 135(2) of the 1999 Constitution relates to the tenure of an elected president or the vice- president who may conclude the tenure where the elected president could not conclude his tenure. That is the purpose of Section135 (2).
“The other constitutional issue is the meaning that may be given to Section 137(1) (b) which provides: “A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President, if (b) he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections”
“The purport of Section 137(1) (b) is to stop any person from being elected into the office of the President more than twice. A person is no longer qualified to contest for the office of President if he had been elected to that office on any two previous elections. The main issue is not about taking Oaths of office but about being elected. So to be qualified to contest, a person (Jonathan) must not have been elected as president on any two previous elections”
The whole idea of this case is to cajole Nigerians into thinking that unless General Buhari wins then the election is not free and fair. The president has always delivered good elections. So it is bad and unconscionable to be harassing Prof Jega to believe that unless he returns Buhari then he has not performed.
“INEC is being forced and tricked into violating the law by doing electronic voting using the CARD READER. This is in violation of Section 52 Electoral Act. Even the contraption called “REMOBS” ( Remodified Open Ballot System) is a radical violation of the “open secret ballot” as stipulated in Section 52(1) of the Electoral Act and is therefore illegal.”
” We appeal to the opposition to stop all ongoing attempt to coerce, stampede and blackmail the Independent National Electoral Commission into taken actions and decisions that violates the law.It is unacceptable to posit that election is only free and fair if the opposition wins and that it is rigged and unfair, if the ruling party wins. This is not true. It is undemocratic thought. An election is free and fair only if the rules, the law, the Electoral Act is complied with. INEC should avoid been sucked into opaque and false theory that unless Buhari wins lose then the election is not fair.
” We must accept that winning election by the opposition cannot and should never be a yardstick to judge a truly free and fair election. The real test is whether the law and rules are complied with,whether what is prohibited stands disallowed during electoral process and whether the electoral umpire resisted the temptation to violate the law in any abject submission to opposition blackmail.
“We are prepared for a free and fair election conducted in line with the Electoral Act.
